Why is faith different?

[cyberpi]

Is there anyone on this thread who does NOT like to have people trust them, believe in them, inform them, lend to them, obey them, empower them, and in other words... to place FAITH in them? Is it really a serious question to ask why does a person desire those who place FAITH in them rather than requiring volumes of assurances, credentials, credit reports, bank statements, collateral, grades, degrees, criminal history, medical history, genetic lineage, personal references, passwords, drug urine tests, alcohol breath tests, etc...? For those who DO like to have people trust them, believe in them, inform them, lend to them, obey them, empower them, and in other words to place FAITH in them, why is that FAITH admired over the more rational selections made from a wealth of factual or non-factual information?

[chron]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Is there anyone on this thread who does NOT like to have people trust them, believe in them...to place FAITH in them? <snip> why is that FAITH admired over the more rational decision making made from a wealth of factual or non-factual information?

I agree, cyberpi: Faith is to be preferred over factual information.

But would you take someone on faith without knowing anything about them?

I think that most would gradually build faith in another as they begin to experience each other, learn about each other -- in short, to delve into the factual information about the person.

Would you trust someone you've just met with your bank account information? Or would you want to "get to know" them first? By which most would mean, learn factual information about them -- not just go on a gut-level feeling about whether they are trustworthy or not.

It's a process. Your sentiment is good, but you make the mistake of assuming that it's either/or, when really I think it's more likely a both/and experience for most of us.

Thanks for sharing!

chron

[China Cat Sunflower]

[T]he law of news is that it is a daily affair. Man can never stand back to get a broad view because he immediately receives a new batch of news, which supersedes the old and demands a new point of focus, for which our reader has no time. To the average man who tries to keep informed, a world emerges that is astonishingly incoherent, absurd, and irrational, which changes rapidly and constantly for reasons he cannot understand.

...

In the world of politics and economics the same holds true. The news is only about trouble, danger, and problems. This gives man the notion that he lives in a terrible and frightening era, that he lives amid catastrophes in a world where everything threatens his safety. Man cannot stand this; he cannot live in an absurd and incoherent world, nor can he accept the idea that the problems, which sprout all around him, cannot be solved, or that he himself has no value as an individual and is subject to the turn of events. The man who keeps himself informed needs a framework in which all this information can be put in order; he needs explanations and comprehensive answers to general problems; he needs coherence. All this is the immediate effect of information. And the more complicated the problems are, the more simple the explanations must be; the more fragmented the canvas, the simpler the pattern; the more difficult the question, the more all embracing the solution; the more menacing the reduction of his own worth, the greater the need for boosting his ego. All this propaganda- and only propaganda- can give him.

Of course, an outstanding man of vast culture, great intelligence, and exceptional energy can find answers for himself, reconcile himself to the absurd, and plan his own action. But we are not thinking here of the outstanding man(who, naturally, we all imagine ourselves to be), but of the ordinary man.

...

Just as information is necessary for awareness, propaganda is necessary to prevent this awareness from being desperate.

Jaques Ellul- Propaganda, The Formation of Men's Attitudes

We're all really busy with our lives and we don't have the time or energy to process the blizzard of information coming at us. It's not possible for us to rationally consider all the factoidal objects flying through our awareness at hyper speed. We can't live in that kind of perpetual state of confusion. Everybody invests faith in some kind of simplification mechanism. Everybody. We just don't have the time or inclination to run down every fact and verify every claim.

Chris

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by chron

But would you take someone on faith without knowing anything about them?

Every single day. Have you not driven a car on a road without knowing the driver of other cars?

Originally Posted by chron

I think that most would gradually build faith in another as they begin to experience each other, learn about each other -- in short, to delve into the factual information about the person.

Is a person dishonest until proven honest? Is a person unfaithful until proven faithful? Is a person hateful until proven loving? Is a person guilty until proven innocent?

Originally Posted by chron

Would you trust someone you've just met with your bank account information?

The question should be: Should someone trust me if I won't give them my bank account information? You've got some information, religious beliefs, and are asking why you should believe it without having more information. How much information must I divulge before you would trust me? Upon having my bank account information... would you then trust me?

Originally Posted by chron

Or would you want to "get to know" them first? By which most would mean, learn factual information about them -- not just go on a gut-level feeling about whether they are trustworthy or not.

Nothing is proven factual without first placing some Faith. Being honest, trustworthy, or faithful is good, but it is not a requirement for Faith.

Originally Posted by chron

It's a process. Your sentiment is good, but you make the mistake of assuming that it's either/or, when really I think it's more likely a both/and experience for most of us.

No. I recognize the difference between blind faith and faith. I was trying to cement a definition of faith away from the very pit of 'Blind Faith' by mirroring it back on the reader. Why do you like people to place Faith in you? What do you expect of people to place Faith in you?

A person can come armed with volumes of credentials, dozens of roses, references stacked through the roof, and the sweetest lips singing the greatest tunes you have ever heard, but is it Faith to believe that information? Or, is it Faith to believe in the person regardless of the information. You've received some information from a religion... you've got the references... you've got the resume... yet you take that back and ask why should anyone believe it. You've got information and you are unhappy with it. Why? Not enough? Because nothing is proven factual without first placing some Faith.

[chron]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Every single day. Have you not driven a car on a road without knowing the driver of other cars?

Of course. But I'm not in personal relationship with them, and so the faith I have in them is not as individuals per se, but more like a faith in the rule of law.

Is a person dishonest until proven honest? Is a person unfaithful until proven faithful? Is a person hateful until proven loving? Is a person guilty until proven innocent?

It is a most unfortunate fact about the world that this is, indeed, the way it works. It is not the way many of us would like it to be, but it is the way it is.

Nothing is proven factual without first placing some Faith.

In what sense? I take this to mean that we must make some assumptions about the natural world in order to get along in it, i.e., I assume (take on faith) that you are human, are not out to murder me, etc. Beyond that, what do you mean? And how does it relate to this conversation?

You've got information and you are unhappy with it. Why? Not enough?

Why is it wrong to seek out information?

~ ~ ~

Wow, you seem very sure of yourself, and that is good. I, however, am not that sure of myself. I am seeking, and one way I do that is by asking questions, looking for more information.

I see the validity of your points, cyberpi; but I do not accept them as being the only validity in the discussion.

Further, I am very much a person of faith. I have faith in rule of law, people in cars on the road. I recently took a job in a new city, and moved away from everyone I know. I understand the basics of faith and live them out in my life.

But religious faith is not the same as everyday faith. Religious faith is about life-and-death matters, and that seems to warrant more careful consideration. Yes, everyday matters can also be seen in a life-and-death context (Is this food prepared by factory workers I've never met poisoned?), but, in general, they are not in the same category as religious faith.

Don't take this to meant that I think religious faith has little to do with everyday life; I don't. But that's not my point here.

~ ~ ~

cyberpi, are you angry with me for not immediately agreeing with your point of view? Or am I off base to detect a strident tone in your words?

I am certainly not angry with you for being so sure of yourself; give me the freedom to explore what I need to explore.

[chron]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Just as information is necessary for awareness, propaganda is necessary to prevent this awareness from being desperate.

Jaques Ellul- Propaganda, The Formation of Men's Attitudes

Chris, is this your way of saying that religion is propaganda?

[Thomas]

Hi Chron —

Originally Posted by chron

Consider the virgin birth of Jesus of Nazareth. That, it seems, is fundamentally unreasonable to me.

OK — but it's not fundamentally unreasonable to me, nor to Christians in general, nor indeed to some of the greatest philosophers who ever lived. You're expressing a personal opinion in this case, which is fine, but it's not a fact, nor a reasonable argument.

Originally Posted by chron

And it surprises me to discover that the Catholic church no longer believes in the virgin birth. Quoting from Catholic Encyclopedia...

You've misread the quote. It was citing the position of modern theology, before examining the arguments.

Originally Posted by chron

Here is the main point to me: when faith is defined as holding a belief that must be accepted and not questioned, then faith is held as against reason, in my opinion.

It's a common assumption of Catholicism, but it's not what Catholic Doctrine states. Take a look at:
Encyclical Letter "Fides et Ratio" on the relationship between faith and reason.

The issue of 'evangelicals' can be a bit unfair ... if one's not careful one ends up shooting fish in a barrel. Certainly, aspects of American evangelicalism horrifies me, but extremism in any vocation does.

I remember when Prof. Richard Dawkins chose American Evangelicals to represent the entire Christian faith, and made them look fools. A TV journalist here in the UK suggested the contest might be somewhat more balanced had he chosen a moral theologian ... but then he'd be obliged to admit his adversary wasn't stupid for being a Christian.

Thomas

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by chron

Ask a religionist why he holds a particular belief and the answer is often that it is a matter of faith, not reason.

My question is: Why is this acceptable? In all other areas of life, reason is accepted. Why is faith exempt?

I look forward to your thoughts.

(I've specifically kept this question as open as possible, but if I haven't been clear or precise enough, ask a question, and we'll dialog about it.)

Why is it acceptable? I have a question for your question, why isn't it acceptable? Please answer me this....

One other thing I find, interesting.... "matter of faith" not reason? That -is- a reason his/her reason is faith.......

[chron]

Originally Posted by Thomas

but it's not fundamentally unreasonable to me, nor to Christians in general, nor indeed to some of the greatest philosophers who ever lived. You're expressing a personal opinion in this case, which is fine, but it's not a fact, nor a reasonable argument.

I'm not sure that it's just a personal opinion, Thomas. Set aside the Christian context for a moment. Is is reasonable to believe that a woman who has never had sex could give birth? Would you believe it of your next door neighbor?

I think it is the Christian tradition that makes it seem reasonable. Or perhaps it is the fact that it is a long-held belief that makes it seem so. To say, however, that a virgin birth (not the virgin birth) is reasonable, is to go against all that we know of human reproduction. This is what I mean.

You've misread the quote. It was citing the position of modern theology, before examining the arguments.

Ah, my bad. I shall go and read further, and I apologize for snagging what I thought was the church's position without fully investigating the matter. And I will read the encyclical as well.

chron

[chron]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Why is it acceptable? I have a question for your question, why isn't it acceptable?

Perhaps this is best illustrated in dialog.

Bob: Water has been known to burst into flames.

Rachel: Really? How do you mean? Have you seen this happen?

Bob: No, I haven't. But it's true just the same.

Rachel: How do you know?

Bob: Well, it's not important to know the "how" of the matter. It just is, and I accept it.

Rachel: Well, I'd like to know more about it before I decide that I agree that water can burst into flames. I mean, perhaps it can under certain conditions, but . . .

Bob: Look, it's a matter of faith. It's wrong to question it; you should just accept it.

~ ~ ~

17th Angel, in all areas of life that I know of, excepting religion, Bob would be told he's out of place to hold to his line of thought. But in religion, it seems to be okay to hold beliefs without supporting them. The reason given (note that a reason is given) is that "faith is different."

My question is, why are matters of faith exempt from reasonableness, to phrase it another way?

Please keep in mind that I'm not attacking faith or religion. Quite the contrary, I'm interested what religion has to say. My way of beginning to learn about religion is to ask of Faith (personifying here), "Why do you refuse to give me a reason for what you say, other than 'That's just the way it is. You must accept what I say and not question.'" Until I know why it's all right for religion to be unreasonable, I won't be able to have much faith in what it says.

peace,

chron

[Paladin]

Chron,
you ask how faith circumvents reason? The examples are many, you have responded to several already. Ad hoc fallacy, relativistic fallacy, appeal to emotion, sentimentality, it's a virtual buffet. Again, nothing wrong with faith, belief in things not seen, this is the glue of society, but it won't pass the test of inquiry. The things religion and spirituality teach have their use, and may have much to say to us, but we must trim off what isn't helpful in our search for what is, and what is not.
Krishnamurti comes to mind as a fine example of inquiry. The great sages and saints, mystics and others have taught us much but notice that each uses what has no form to fill a pre-existing form. Merton translated his inner experience into Christian terms, so did all the great Christian mystics. Rumi saw things a bit differently as did Ramana Maharshi. Therefore your own inquiry into the nature of what is might take you in a different direction.
Having faith in a particular religion and all its facets might be comforting for some, but I don't think it reflects reality.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by chron

Perhaps this is best illustrated in dialog.

Bob: Water has been known to burst into flames.

Rachel: Really? How do you mean? Have you seen this happen?

Bob: No, I haven't. But it's true just the same.

Rachel: How do you know?

Bob: Well, it's not important to know the "how" of the matter. It just is, and I accept it.

Rachel: Well, I'd like to know more about it before I decide that I agree that water can burst into flames. I mean, perhaps it can under certain conditions, but . . .

Bob: Look, it's a matter of faith. It's wrong to question it; you should just accept it.

I am sure bob would explain that it comes from his set of faith... As to why... And I am sure he wouldn't say -you- have to accept it... If he did he is a fool, I would expect a person to say you would have to accept that is their stance on the situation, which is fair enough who is Rachel to tell him what to think?

Originally Posted by chron

17th Angel, in all areas of life that I know of, excepting religion, Bob would be told he's out of place to hold to his line of thought. But in religion, it seems to be okay to hold beliefs without supporting them. The reason given (note that a reason is given) is that "faith is different."

Oh really? Anywhere else in life it wouldn't be seen as acceptable, by some?

Bob: That rachel is a real annoying person!
JimBob: I guess she can be, with all that water nonsense...
Bob: She's evil.......
Jimbob: How can you say that!?
Bob: Gut feeling........

You never have gut feelings? Or so on?

Originally Posted by chron

Please keep in mind that I'm not attacking faith or religion. Quite the contrary, I'm interested what religion has to say. My way of beginning to learn about religion is to ask of Faith (personifying here), "Why do you refuse to give me a reason for what you say, other than 'That's just the way it is. You must accept what I say and not question.'" Until I know why it's all right for religion to be unreasonable, I won't be able to have much faith in what it says.

peace,

chron

With some people chron, I would say faith can be a word subsititued for.... Trust, they have from "high authority" this is to be, or this is how this is... And so on, because this comes from higher up and from figures that are a godlike deity, you can understand right? If you have this strong confidence in say the bible for example.... Such things Jesus spoke of... You'd have faith... Trust that he was being honest and what he was saying was possible... So taking references from said perfect beardy man, you can then use these as stepping stones to other parts of life... And you know you can put your faith into something because it relates back to your religion...

faith /feɪθ/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8.Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. —Idiom 9.in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

Obviously most of these relate to religion, but you can have faith without religion if you look at numero.... two, heh. It can stem from a promise from a friend of family member if you have had experience with say uncle Tony... And he is indeed a man of his word, you have faith that he will pay you back that money...... Or so on... I tend to see faith as a blind leap of trust, but there has to be that ounce of blindness.... M'kay.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by chron

cyberpi, are you angry with me for not immediately agreeing with your point of view? Or am I off base to detect a strident tone in your words?

Nah it's ok chron. Cyberpi is someone you'll find who is quite flexible in how he uses his mind. He explores ideas in a rather . . . unusual way . . . you'll get to know him the more you interact with him. Be ready to be surprised.

He may appear angry with the rhetorical questions, but I doubt it. Then again, with electronic communication . . . you never know what people are expressing. From my personal experience and observation, I would doubt it. I would ask that you have faith that he isn't grumpy.

Originally Posted by chron

Here is the main point to me: when faith is defined as holding a belief that must be accepted and not questioned, then faith is held as against reason, in my opinion.

In war, and in political and ideological struggles, people are often given certain instructions that they must follow to support a particular cause. They may not know about everything that is happening around them, but must assume that the instructions that had been given are a reasonable response given information that the instructor, commander, messenger or politician knew and possessed. It's the same with religion. We put our faith in our politicians, military commanders, judges and security forces. We choose to believe that they are acting ethically, that they are trustworthy and making the best possible decisions that we could possibly demand of them.

Originally Posted by chron

I know that the way my car's engine works is explainable in terms that I could understand if I put my mind to it. If, upon probing the reasons why my car propels me down the road, I was told, "It's really just a matter of faith; you just need to trust that it works and leave it at that," then I might be, well, skeptical (another great word worth its own discussion), and not quite so willing to trust without thinking.

Knowing how something works doesn't mean there can't be so-called "faith." Machines often fail due to glitches or damage to their components. They could, quite easily, just fail if not assembled properly. Your knowledge of the functionality of the machine can make your worried. You know where things can go wrong. Maybe some of the piston rings could go bust, or you have fuel leaking out of the engine . . . could cause a fire hazard . . .

I would say that faith doesn't mean you don't know how something works. Knowing how something works may be important in having faith in the first place, for example, in relationships. Blind faith is when we believe in something even when we don't know how it works.

I see faith as something personal. It's about who you are as a person. It must be compatible with your personality, attitude and ways of thinking. It would not be faith if you just followed dogma that others spoon-fed you. Another way of seeing faith is that it's about your personal destiny (if you believe in your destiny, that is).

Originally Posted by chron

Reason is thinking logically about a thing.
And reason is all about thinking logically. That still seems good to me.

Well . . . not all reasoning is driven by logic. There is, for example, emotional reasoning. Take for example IQ and EQ. IQ pertains to logical intelligence, EQ to emotional intelligence. Faith is driven by emotional reasoning. It's about how you feel about something. Logic is just one kind of reasoning.

The trouble, often, with blind faith is that it is often driven by a stubborn adherence to the same system of logic despite changing circumstances. An extreme Evangelical or Fundamentalist (if I was to set up a straw man) is not someone who refuses to use logic. He may even claim not to use logic. But because he's so stubborn and so strict, what drives his thinking is, actually, a kind of logic, a logic that is inflexible, unmovable and cannot be changed. In that sense it's not always good to be a follower of logic as strict adherence to logical thinking can get people stuck onto a path from which they cannot unlock or unstick themselves.

In many such cases, only emotional reasoning, the fear of being enslaved by inflexible logic, and the fear of losing one's life to something that isn't worth valuing, because it has no value, is what frees such people. The horror of being the slave of something so inhuman and dehumanising is what allows them to break free. It is when these people start loving themselves again that they can once again taste freedom. They can have faith, that it is ok to not be a slave of such monstrous concepts.

The difference between the faith that sets them free, and the blind faith that keeps them enslaved by blind logic, is that the former is about how they feel about themselves whereas in the latter there is no emotion. It is all logic.

Logic can be liberating and emancipating for some, but dangerous and enslaving for others.

[chron]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Having faith in a particular religion and all its facets might be comforting for some, but I don't think it reflects reality.

Perhaps, perhaps. The thing for me is, while I certainly come down on the side of rational thought, there is something of the mystic in me. A paradox, to be sure. I cannot put my finger on it, but there is something beyond my five senses, something I sense dimly through a sort of sixth sense, but I cannot say what it is.

Is this a "reality" that springs only from my own mind, or my cultural upbringing, or a combination of the two (plus who knows what else)?

[chron]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

You never have gut feelings? Or so on?

Gut feelings, or intuition: a part of life, I agree. But the fact that I act on intuition from time to time doesn't mean that there should never be a reason for holding a belief?

The world is not black and white, of course. There are times when a gut feeling is an appropriate tool for deciding what to do. But when it comes to religion, the stakes are, as I've said, high: it's a matter of life and death.

Surely something so important as whether I will spend eternity in heaven or hell deserves more than just a gut feeling -- or a cursory glance at the supporting evidence.

By the way, why do you find Rachel (in my example) annoying? All she said was that she wanted to look into the matter instead of accepting it without question.

I tend to see faith as a blind leap of trust...

Exactly. I have faith, even blind faith, in all sorts of things and people -- from time to time. But my eternal destiny warrants a closer look, I think.

I'm reminded of the oft-quoted Wizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

What -- or who -- is behind the curtain? Surely it is not wrong to ask . . . .